yes, if bitcoin can repulse the Hearn-Andresen XT PanoptiCoin FUD panic and forking social attack we'll be in good shape for the next leg up (and hopefully well shod of those two little ratbags)
strongly agree.
Topic: ... - page 27. (Read 61003 times)
I know that this update is not good because of the lack of consensus used to obtain it, and the ip address issues. However, it also is not good that the Bitcoin "foundation" has almost forcefully kept Bitcoin in the stone ages and a few of them are so afraid to fork that they are causing the issues we see here today. They should be forking all the time improving the code so it will get bigger adoption.
However, I would like to point out that using Tor with Bitcoin is not safe. Because if a person controls enough exit nodes they can easily attack and it can also seriously jeopardize your anonymity.
Regardless, anti-ddos is one thing... tracking ip addresses and "prioritizing them" and having "blacklist" features is another and should never be allowed in the source.
The lightning network is a good idea, however that too should not need as drastic of a change as they say it would. Since you can daisy chain 2 of 2 multisig together there is a more decentralized way to do that(just routing ious). And also, it seems like a network like that would never get done before the end of the year securely.
If they really want, there should only be two features added. A block size update is perfectly fine but 8mb? Why so much? The problems we face immediately get solved if we double or quadruple it. Then they should add a feature which allows alerts for updates so future forks can be more frequent.
Also they should add checklocktimeverify so Bitcoin can actually start being more useful.
However, I would like to point out that using Tor with Bitcoin is not safe. Because if a person controls enough exit nodes they can easily attack and it can also seriously jeopardize your anonymity.
Regardless, anti-ddos is one thing... tracking ip addresses and "prioritizing them" and having "blacklist" features is another and should never be allowed in the source.
The lightning network is a good idea, however that too should not need as drastic of a change as they say it would. Since you can daisy chain 2 of 2 multisig together there is a more decentralized way to do that(just routing ious). And also, it seems like a network like that would never get done before the end of the year securely.
If they really want, there should only be two features added. A block size update is perfectly fine but 8mb? Why so much? The problems we face immediately get solved if we double or quadruple it. Then they should add a feature which allows alerts for updates so future forks can be more frequent.
Also they should add checklocktimeverify so Bitcoin can actually start being more useful.
I work for myself, no one is behind this but me. My career is Bitcoin so I have an obligation to protect it.
You seem confused. There are thousands of lines of code in Bitcoin Core itself concerned with the whitelisting and blacklisting of peers based on their behaviour. I get that you're trying to "help", by railing against XT, but when you overstate your case it isn't helpful. You're unable to point to specifics in the XT changeset that implement blacklisting because they don't exist.
Specifically, the 'fShouldBan' member which you keep quoting is already part of Bitcoin Core, and has been for a long time now. It is nothing to do with XT.
See this code in the original Bitcoin repository.
Hearn's changes are relatively small if you ignore the IP list itself which makes up the majority of the diff.
It does the following:
* fetches a list of Tor exit nodes from torproject.org, leaking your IP address to that site in the process
* in the event that your node is full, it will disconnect a Tor exit node if a non-Tor peer attempts to connect
That's about all.
I don't know why anyone would think it's a good idea to lump a bunch of unpopular changes in with the silly change which increases the block size limit from 1 MB to 8000 MB. Each extra already-rejected-by-people-who-know-their-shit change you add in surely just makes the whole package even less attractive. Unless maybe the strategy is to make the shit sandwich less unappealing over time by removing one turd at a time until only the blocksize change remains. Then everyone will exclaim "boy, there's only one turd in this sandwich - that's so much better than five turds" and gobble it up.
I hope not.
BitcoinXT has been out for a long time. Certainly there are users that would like those features. The BIP101 was added so the network can move forward to consensus which shouldnt be only between a handful of people.
They dont just strip all the features to roll out the BIP101. And its not like they hide or sneak any thing in. People hereare just clueless because bitcoinXT did not have a fair discussions.
Anyone can remove any features they want. The protocol rule is what matters. Even Electrum can use BIP101 and we all have the same chain.
Quote
* fetches a list of Tor exit nodes from torproject.org, leaking your IP address to that site in the process
Only if you are not using TOR or proxy and you didn't disable it... So your IP is public anyway...And I can tell you why. Run XT for some time and you will see that it is needed. There are some people out there that will do anything to stop XT... Even when BIT101 was not implemented I got a lot of DOS...
I work for myself, no one is behind this but me. My career is Bitcoin so I have an obligation to protect it.
You seem confused. There are thousands of lines of code in Bitcoin Core itself concerned with the whitelisting and blacklisting of peers based on their behaviour. I get that you're trying to "help", by railing against XT, but when you overstate your case it isn't helpful. You're unable to point to specifics in the XT changeset that implement blacklisting because they don't exist.
Specifically, the 'fShouldBan' member which you keep quoting is already part of Bitcoin Core, and has been for a long time now. It is nothing to do with XT.
See this code in the original Bitcoin repository.
Hearn's changes are relatively small if you ignore the IP list itself which makes up the majority of the diff.
It does the following:
* fetches a list of Tor exit nodes from torproject.org, leaking your IP address to that site in the process
* in the event that your node is full, it will disconnect a Tor exit node if a non-Tor peer attempts to connect
That's about all.
I don't know why anyone would think it's a good idea to lump a bunch of unpopular changes in with the silly change which increases the block size limit from 1 MB to 8000 MB. Each extra already-rejected-by-people-who-know-their-shit change you add in surely just makes the whole package even less attractive. Unless maybe the strategy is to make the shit sandwich less unappealing over time by removing one turd at a time until only the blocksize change remains. Then everyone will exclaim "boy, there's only one turd in this sandwich - that's so much better than five turds" and gobble it up.
I hope not.
The thing is we all know the OP, turtlehurricane, does not even code or know anything about coding.
He just copied and pasted some shit that he was told from troll box somewhere.
He was asked to show those line of codes so many times and kept coming back to repeating the same shit " Its in here look...." while claiming this "blacklisting" is tens thousands of code.
While he cant give the lines of code that support his statement he mixed to comments that does not relate to each other to support his claim.
So who is the one behind OP? they must know they're spreading BS and used idiot like OP to buy what they told him.
Puppet master, you're doing a terrible job
Majorly false, I developed code for the University of Wisconsin Nonhydrostatic modeling system. I know how to simulate the entire fucking atmosphere from a hurricane to a leaf floating on a breeze. I can read code. He just copied and pasted some shit that he was told from troll box somewhere.
He was asked to show those line of codes so many times and kept coming back to repeating the same shit " Its in here look...." while claiming this "blacklisting" is tens thousands of code.
While he cant give the lines of code that support his statement he mixed to comments that does not relate to each other to support his claim.
So who is the one behind OP? they must know they're spreading BS and used idiot like OP to buy what they told him.
Puppet master, you're doing a terrible job
I work for myself, no one is behind this but me. My career is Bitcoin so I have an obligation to protect it.
Give us any reference.
The thing is we all know the OP, turtlehurricane, does not even code or know anything about coding.
He just copied and pasted some shit that he was told from troll box somewhere.
He was asked to show those line of codes so many times and kept coming back to repeating the same shit " Its in here look...." while claiming this "blacklisting" is tens thousands of code.
While he cant give the lines of code that support his statement he mixed to comments that does not relate to each other to support his claim.
So who is the one behind OP? they must know they're spreading BS and used idiot like OP to buy what they told him.
Puppet master, you're doing a terrible job
Majorly false, I developed code for the University of Wisconsin Nonhydrostatic modeling system. I know how to simulate the entire fucking atmosphere from a hurricane to a leaf floating on a breeze. I can read code. He just copied and pasted some shit that he was told from troll box somewhere.
He was asked to show those line of codes so many times and kept coming back to repeating the same shit " Its in here look...." while claiming this "blacklisting" is tens thousands of code.
While he cant give the lines of code that support his statement he mixed to comments that does not relate to each other to support his claim.
So who is the one behind OP? they must know they're spreading BS and used idiot like OP to buy what they told him.
Puppet master, you're doing a terrible job
I work for myself, no one is behind this but me. My career is Bitcoin so I have an obligation to protect it.
You're telling me University of Wisconsin hired the most incompetent programmer i've ever seen? Does not how to report a few line of codes? Doesnt know CVS? And never use githup?
Somehow i doubt it, and you're just full of shit.
Prove me wrong then, tell us why you couldnt give us the code ? Why did you only give us 2 seperate comments which are not even related to each other?
Noone and i mean noone quote comments in source code as a proof of what the code does. If you belive the comments are true then why did you ignore Mike's comment explaining what the mechanism does?
Go ahead. Prove me wrong
You do know that is a python script, run at compile time to dynamically generate the list from tor? Unless you are recompiling bitcoin binaries ( on your live server!!) every time you start your node, then this is not an issue. If tor does indeed log ip addresses ( which makes the whole thing pointless anyway) then they are only logging the address of the machine that compiled the code. In most (intelligent) cases that will not be the one running the node. In most cases you will be downloading binaries.
Do I get my candy now?
Do I get my candy now?
No candy for you.
See this code which runs at run time not compile time, and which also sends your IP address to torproject.org.
EDIT: FTFY:
See this code which runs at run time not compile time, and which also makes HTTPS connection to torproject.org if you are not running any anonymising tools and you haven't turn that of.
It is not hidden you can find it documented and you can turn it off even if you don't use TOR or proxy. If you are not hiding your IP this really isn't a issue... Your IP is not hidden. Anyone knows where you are...
You do know that is a python script, run at compile time to dynamically generate the list from tor? Unless you are recompiling bitcoin binaries ( on your live server!!) every time you start your node, then this is not an issue. If tor does indeed log ip addresses ( which makes the whole thing pointless anyway) then they are only logging the address of the machine that compiled the code. In most (intelligent) cases that will not be the one running the node. In most cases you will be downloading binaries.
Do I get my candy now?
Do I get my candy now?
No candy for you.
See this code which runs at run time not compile time, and which also sends your IP address to torproject.org.
The thing is we all know the OP, turtlehurricane, does not even code or know anything about coding.
He just copied and pasted some shit that he was told from troll box somewhere.
He was asked to show those line of codes so many times and kept coming back to repeating the same shit " Its in here look...." while claiming this "blacklisting" is tens thousands of code.
While he cant give the lines of code that support his statement he mixed to comments that does not relate to each other to support his claim.
So who is the one behind OP? they must know they're spreading BS and used idiot like OP to buy what they told him.
Puppet master, you're doing a terrible job
Majorly false, I developed code for the University of Wisconsin Nonhydrostatic modeling system. I know how to simulate the entire fucking atmosphere from a hurricane to a leaf floating on a breeze. I can read code. He just copied and pasted some shit that he was told from troll box somewhere.
He was asked to show those line of codes so many times and kept coming back to repeating the same shit " Its in here look...." while claiming this "blacklisting" is tens thousands of code.
While he cant give the lines of code that support his statement he mixed to comments that does not relate to each other to support his claim.
So who is the one behind OP? they must know they're spreading BS and used idiot like OP to buy what they told him.
Puppet master, you're doing a terrible job
I work for myself, no one is behind this but me. My career is Bitcoin so I have an obligation to protect it.
hmm ... I also thought about clarifying the difference between a blockchain change (BIP101) and a client change(anti-DDos measurement), but I forgot about it, and I don't think all this XT-Bashers would understand, since they obviously lack basic knowledge about how Bitcoin works. (I wouldn't even blame them for that, if they would stop spreading FUD about things they don't understand)
So, since we are at it:
The features in BitcoinXT are not part of the hardfork. In fact, such changes are done all the time in Core. They can easily be removed. Even someone with just basic knowledge about programming could easily remove them and compile his own version.
They don't change the blockchain/are not permanently stored in the blockchain, don't require a hardfork whatsoever. Even if malicious code would be slipped into Bitcoin Core/XT (which is very unlikely since so many people have their eyes on it) the damage would just be temporally till somebody finds it and removes it(or make his own version of the client).
So, since we are at it:
The features in BitcoinXT are not part of the hardfork. In fact, such changes are done all the time in Core. They can easily be removed. Even someone with just basic knowledge about programming could easily remove them and compile his own version.
They don't change the blockchain/are not permanently stored in the blockchain, don't require a hardfork whatsoever. Even if malicious code would be slipped into Bitcoin Core/XT (which is very unlikely since so many people have their eyes on it) the damage would just be temporally till somebody finds it and removes it(or make his own version of the client).
yes, if bitcoin can repulse the Hearn-Andresen XT PanoptiCoin FUD panic and forking social attack we'll be in good shape for the next leg up (and hopefully well shod of those two little ratbags)
this ^^^
andresen and his sidekick can fuck right off as far as I'm concerned, would be interesting to know how long they've been plotting to usurp bitcoin with this XT bullshit.
I like this post from Slush eleuthria https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12194813
The thing is we all know the OP, turtlehurricane, does not even code or know anything about coding.
He just copied and pasted some shit that he was told from troll box somewhere.
He was asked to show those line of codes so many times and kept coming back to repeating the same shit " Its in here look...." while claiming this "blacklisting" is tens thousands of code.
While he cant give the lines of code that support his statement he mixed to comments that does not relate to each other to support his claim.
So who is the one behind OP? they must know they're spreading BS and used idiot like OP to buy what they told him.
Puppet master, you're doing a terrible job
He just copied and pasted some shit that he was told from troll box somewhere.
He was asked to show those line of codes so many times and kept coming back to repeating the same shit " Its in here look...." while claiming this "blacklisting" is tens thousands of code.
While he cant give the lines of code that support his statement he mixed to comments that does not relate to each other to support his claim.
So who is the one behind OP? they must know they're spreading BS and used idiot like OP to buy what they told him.
Puppet master, you're doing a terrible job
Look closely, do you see there is anything missing in yours?
Thank you, I did miss that part yeah. Here it is:Code:
//! Whether this peer should be disconnected and banned (unless whitelisted).
bool fShouldBan;
Source: https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/blob/master/src/main.cppbool fShouldBan;
Lines: 223 and 224
Just because it isn't in the linked commit, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It exists in the master branch and the latest release.
Just a part of code in question:
Code:
/**
* Maintain validation-specific state about nodes, protected by cs_main, instead
* by CNode's own locks. This simplifies asynchronous operation, where
* processing of incoming data is done after the ProcessMessage call returns,
* and we're no longer holding the node's locks.
*/
struct CNodeState {
//! The peer's address
CService address;
//! Whether we have a fully established connection.
bool fCurrentlyConnected;
//! Accumulated misbehaviour score for this peer.
int nMisbehavior;
//! Whether this peer should be disconnected and banned (unless whitelisted).
bool fShouldBan;
//! String name of this peer (debugging/logging purposes).
std::string name;
//! List of asynchronously-determined block rejections to notify this peer about.
std::vector rejects;
//! The best known block we know this peer has announced.
CBlockIndex *pindexBestKnownBlock;
//! The hash of the last unknown block this peer has announced.
uint256 hashLastUnknownBlock;
//! The last full block we both have.
CBlockIndex *pindexLastCommonBlock;
//! Whether we've started headers synchronization with this peer.
bool fSyncStarted;
//! Since when we're stalling block download progress (in microseconds), or 0.
int64_t nStallingSince;
list vBlocksInFlight;
int nBlocksInFlight;
int nBlocksInFlightValidHeaders;
//! Whether we consider this a preferred download peer.
bool fPreferredDownload;
CNodeState() {
fCurrentlyConnected = false;
nMisbehavior = 0;
fShouldBan = false;
pindexBestKnownBlock = NULL;
hashLastUnknownBlock.SetNull();
pindexLastCommonBlock = NULL;
fSyncStarted = false;
nStallingSince = 0;
nBlocksInFlight = 0;
nBlocksInFlightValidHeaders = 0;
fPreferredDownload = false;
}
};
void Misbehaving(NodeId pnode, int howmuch)
{
if (howmuch == 0)
return;
NodeStatePtr state(pnode);
if (state.IsNull())
return;
state->nMisbehavior += howmuch;
int banscore = GetArg("-banscore", 100);
if (state->nMisbehavior >= banscore && state->nMisbehavior - howmuch < banscore)
{
LogPrintf("%s: %s (%d -> %d) BAN THRESHOLD EXCEEDED\n", __func__, state->name, state->nMisbehavior-howmuch, state->nMisbehavior);
state->fShouldBan = true;
} else
LogPrintf("%s: %s (%d -> %d)\n", __func__, state->name, state->nMisbehavior-howmuch, state->nMisbehavior);
}
void static InvalidBlockFound(CBlockIndex *pindex, const CValidationState &state) {
int nDoS = 0;
if (state.IsInvalid(nDoS)) {
std::map::iterator it = mapBlockSource.find(pindex->GetBlockHash());
NodeStatePtr nodeState(it->second);
if (it != mapBlockSource.end() && !nodeState.IsNull()) {
CBlockReject reject = {state.GetRejectCode(), state.GetRejectReason().substr(0, MAX_REJECT_MESSAGE_LENGTH), pindex->GetBlockHash()};
nodeState->rejects.push_back(reject);
if (nDoS > 0)
Misbehaving(it->second, nDoS);
}
}
if (!state.CorruptionPossible()) {
pindex->nStatus |= BLOCK_FAILED_VALID;
setDirtyBlockIndex.insert(pindex);
setBlockIndexCandidates.erase(pindex);
InvalidChainFound(pindex);
}
}
bool static SanityCheckMessage(CNode* peer, const CNetMessage& msg)
{
const std::string& strCommand = msg.hdr.GetCommand();
if (strCommand == "block") {
uint64_t maxSize = Params().GetConsensus().MaxBlockSize(GetAdjustedTime() + 2 * 60 * 60, sizeForkTime.load());
if (msg.hdr.nMessageSize > maxSize) {
LogPrint("net", "Oversized %s message from peer=%i\n", SanitizeString(strCommand), peer->GetId());
return false;
}
}
else if (msg.hdr.nMessageSize > MAX_PROTOCOL_MESSAGE_LENGTH ||
(maxMessageSizes.count(strCommand) && msg.hdr.nMessageSize > maxMessageSizes[strCommand])) {
LogPrint("net", "Oversized %s message from peer=%i (%d bytes)\n",
SanitizeString(strCommand), peer->GetId(), msg.hdr.nMessageSize);
Misbehaving(peer->GetId(), 20);
return msg.hdr.nMessageSize <= MAX_PROTOCOL_MESSAGE_LENGTH;
}
// This would be a good place for more sophisticated DoS detection/prevention.
// (e.g. disconnect a peer that is flooding us with excessive messages)
return true;
}
* Maintain validation-specific state about nodes, protected by cs_main, instead
* by CNode's own locks. This simplifies asynchronous operation, where
* processing of incoming data is done after the ProcessMessage call returns,
* and we're no longer holding the node's locks.
*/
struct CNodeState {
//! The peer's address
CService address;
//! Whether we have a fully established connection.
bool fCurrentlyConnected;
//! Accumulated misbehaviour score for this peer.
int nMisbehavior;
//! Whether this peer should be disconnected and banned (unless whitelisted).
bool fShouldBan;
//! String name of this peer (debugging/logging purposes).
std::string name;
//! List of asynchronously-determined block rejections to notify this peer about.
std::vector
//! The best known block we know this peer has announced.
CBlockIndex *pindexBestKnownBlock;
//! The hash of the last unknown block this peer has announced.
uint256 hashLastUnknownBlock;
//! The last full block we both have.
CBlockIndex *pindexLastCommonBlock;
//! Whether we've started headers synchronization with this peer.
bool fSyncStarted;
//! Since when we're stalling block download progress (in microseconds), or 0.
int64_t nStallingSince;
list
int nBlocksInFlight;
int nBlocksInFlightValidHeaders;
//! Whether we consider this a preferred download peer.
bool fPreferredDownload;
CNodeState() {
fCurrentlyConnected = false;
nMisbehavior = 0;
fShouldBan = false;
pindexBestKnownBlock = NULL;
hashLastUnknownBlock.SetNull();
pindexLastCommonBlock = NULL;
fSyncStarted = false;
nStallingSince = 0;
nBlocksInFlight = 0;
nBlocksInFlightValidHeaders = 0;
fPreferredDownload = false;
}
};
void Misbehaving(NodeId pnode, int howmuch)
{
if (howmuch == 0)
return;
NodeStatePtr state(pnode);
if (state.IsNull())
return;
state->nMisbehavior += howmuch;
int banscore = GetArg("-banscore", 100);
if (state->nMisbehavior >= banscore && state->nMisbehavior - howmuch < banscore)
{
LogPrintf("%s: %s (%d -> %d) BAN THRESHOLD EXCEEDED\n", __func__, state->name, state->nMisbehavior-howmuch, state->nMisbehavior);
state->fShouldBan = true;
} else
LogPrintf("%s: %s (%d -> %d)\n", __func__, state->name, state->nMisbehavior-howmuch, state->nMisbehavior);
}
void static InvalidBlockFound(CBlockIndex *pindex, const CValidationState &state) {
int nDoS = 0;
if (state.IsInvalid(nDoS)) {
std::map
NodeStatePtr nodeState(it->second);
if (it != mapBlockSource.end() && !nodeState.IsNull()) {
CBlockReject reject = {state.GetRejectCode(), state.GetRejectReason().substr(0, MAX_REJECT_MESSAGE_LENGTH), pindex->GetBlockHash()};
nodeState->rejects.push_back(reject);
if (nDoS > 0)
Misbehaving(it->second, nDoS);
}
}
if (!state.CorruptionPossible()) {
pindex->nStatus |= BLOCK_FAILED_VALID;
setDirtyBlockIndex.insert(pindex);
setBlockIndexCandidates.erase(pindex);
InvalidChainFound(pindex);
}
}
bool static SanityCheckMessage(CNode* peer, const CNetMessage& msg)
{
const std::string& strCommand = msg.hdr.GetCommand();
if (strCommand == "block") {
uint64_t maxSize = Params().GetConsensus().MaxBlockSize(GetAdjustedTime() + 2 * 60 * 60, sizeForkTime.load());
if (msg.hdr.nMessageSize > maxSize) {
LogPrint("net", "Oversized %s message from peer=%i\n", SanitizeString(strCommand), peer->GetId());
return false;
}
}
else if (msg.hdr.nMessageSize > MAX_PROTOCOL_MESSAGE_LENGTH ||
(maxMessageSizes.count(strCommand) && msg.hdr.nMessageSize > maxMessageSizes[strCommand])) {
LogPrint("net", "Oversized %s message from peer=%i (%d bytes)\n",
SanitizeString(strCommand), peer->GetId(), msg.hdr.nMessageSize);
Misbehaving(peer->GetId(), 20);
return msg.hdr.nMessageSize <= MAX_PROTOCOL_MESSAGE_LENGTH;
}
// This would be a good place for more sophisticated DoS detection/prevention.
// (e.g. disconnect a peer that is flooding us with excessive messages)
return true;
}
There is much more of the code... More then I can get in this mesage. Just search for Misbehaving
See the diference? There a re a lot of things you need to do to activate this? Something normal node will not do.
What Hearn wants is for Bitcoin to become regulated for KYC/AML etc. ...
Then the fight will be between the Wild West vs. Regulation and that on a global scale.
Then the fight will be between the Wild West vs. Regulation and that on a global scale.
Im against XT at all costs, but the real question is here, how much non-regulation and super privacy can we afford if we want to see BTC go mainstream? I cant wait for confidential transactions to be operative but I wonder if more privacy will scare governments away even more.
EDIT: the only thing protecting you is that it is not easy to connect name and address. But it is posible... Even using multiple addresses doesn't help if you are not careful enough.
You are right, there's no way to get privacy unless you get paid directly in BTC and you never exchange for fiat, if you exchange for fiat you should have your stuff taxed. In an ideal world we would have merchants everywhere IRL so we wouldn't need to exchange for fiat to buy some things.
What Hearn wants is for Bitcoin to become regulated for KYC/AML etc. ...
Then the fight will be between the Wild West vs. Regulation and that on a global scale.
Then the fight will be between the Wild West vs. Regulation and that on a global scale.
Im against XT at all costs, but the real question is here, how much non-regulation and super privacy can we afford if we want to see BTC go mainstream? I cant wait for confidential transactions to be operative but I wonder if more privacy will scare governments away even more.
EDIT: the only thing protecting you is that it is not easy to connect name and address. But it is posible... Even using multiple addresses doesn't help if you are not careful enough.
You are right, there's no way to get privacy unless you get paid directly in BTC and you never exchange for fiat, if you exchange for fiat you should have your stuff taxed. In an ideal world we would have merchants everywhere IRL so we wouldn't need to exchange for fiat to buy some things.
OK this really looks serious. Gavin and Mike are starting the first real attack against Bitcoin and all that it stands for.
Stop XT!
Stop XT!
actually this could be a good test to see how strong bitcoin is, if we can sustain this giant problem caused by two influent guy, then we are done, bitcoin will prove that can defeat anything even internal disputes
all those problems will make bitcoin stronger
yes, if bitcoin can repulse the Hearn-Andresen XT PanoptiCoin FUD panic and forking social attack we'll be in good shape for the next leg up (and hopefully well shod of those two little ratbags)
So true. They embedded themselves at a time when Bitcoin was in need of any development effort it could get and have stuck around like cancers since that time. Now rapidly metastasizing. Bitcoin's most impressive achievement would be to survive through the days when these two were still around and still causing problems.
Ultimately Satoshi's most impressive design might have been that of building a social structure which could encapsulate and ultimately expel the likes of Mike and Gavin. Thankfully the promise of the technology is such that it attracted the right kind of people as well, and many of these folks happen to have very good engineering skills.
I was one of the first people to publicly call out all of Mike, Gavin, and the Bitcoin Foundation here on this forum I think. Before TBF was formed I suggested that transparency was important to me since I would need to make decisions about what to do upon a hostile fork failure mode which I was anticipating as a likely event at some point in the future. It was not idle talk. Concerns like these factored into the position I took in the first place and how I've dealt with that position over the years. I would not have expected Bitcoin to survive with Mike and Gavin being where they were and doing what they do. If it does I'll be even more in awe of Satoshi's variety of design skills.
http://cointelegraph.com/news/115153/bitcoin-xt-fork-can-blacklist-tor-exits-may-reveal-users-ip-addresses
Lets see how meono and co try their best to hide facts now
Stop XT!
No need to hide them. There are big errors in this article... Remember Uber storries? Just put it out. If it was on forum it can't be faked...Lets see how meono and co try their best to hide facts now
Stop XT!
First post that is quoted and article is talking about:
http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010386.html
But left out the part where he figures out he was looking at the wrong code:
http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010388.html
We will see if they will fix that...
And I manage to sleep and work and not even kano found the code that is doing what you are saying it is doing in all this time? So where it is...
Jump to: